Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hobgood v. Anchor Motor Freight
Citations: 316 S.E.2d 86; 68 N.C. App. 783; 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 3431Docket: 8310IC771
Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina; June 5, 1984; North Carolina; State Appellate Court
Robert G. Hobgood, an employee of Anchor Motor Freight, sustained a serious injury during an off-duty period while seated in his truck after making a delivery. Following the assault that resulted in a gunshot wound, Hobgood filed a worker's compensation claim. The Deputy Commissioner initially ruled that the injury did not arise in the course of his employment. Hobgood appealed this decision to the North Carolina Industrial Commission, which reviewed the case without taking additional evidence and ultimately concluded that the injury did arise out of his employment, awarding him medical expenses and temporary disability payments. The defendants, Anchor Motor Freight and Argonaut Insurance Company, appealed the Commission's decision, arguing that it lacked authority to modify the Deputy Commissioner's order and that the findings of the Deputy Commissioner should be conclusive due to conflicting evidence regarding Hobgood's status at the time of the incident. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's decision, referencing precedent that establishes the Commission's plenary powers to adopt, modify, or reject findings from the Deputy Commissioner. The Court also addressed the defendants' argument regarding the requirement for appellants to show "good ground" for review, clarifying that the Commission's discretionary determination of what constitutes "good ground" is not subject to review unless there is evidence of manifest abuse. Citing established case law, the Court determined that an employee remains within the scope of employment during work-related trips unless there is clear evidence of deviation for personal reasons. The Court concluded that Hobgood's status was appropriately assessed by the Commission, affirming the order in favor of Hobgood.